Thanks!Interesting "article". :up: — Alkis Piskas
I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?'Can there also be that everything is a combination of order and disorder, i.e. it is both ordered and disordered? — Alkis Piskas
OK. Here is a definition from the BothAnd Blog. If that's not narrow enough for you, I have more. BothAnd is a philosophical concept not a scientific term. But it is related to the scientific notions bolded in the quote below. :smile:This just leaves folks to assume neutral or anti, when you type not pro and pro when you suggest not anti. In science, the term 'novel,' just means 'new.' All together, I think the quote above is far too broad to be of much use to our discussion. — universeness
The "but" paragraph is merely referring to primitive notions that are describing the same kind of phenomena that scientists study, but without the intervening centuries of learning. Their ideas may seem like "nonsense" to you, but they conveyed meaningful philosophical information to them*1. For example, early humans seemed to assume that anything that moved was animated by the same invisible force that motivated humans. The analogy to "breath" was a metaphor based on the observed fact that Life requires breathing. The Bible says that "life is in the blood", but today we would add that oxygen in the blood is essential to life. It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers*2. For example, Aristotle used the Greek word "energeia" meaning : activity, operation, vigour. workmanship. supernatural action, cosmic force. But today, we have a mathematical definition of "energy"*3. Same general understanding, with more decimal places. :nerd:I think the 'but' above is nonsense — universeness
Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. :joke:You maybe guilty of over-dramatising any current gaps between the physics of the macro and the physics of the subatomic or gaps between classical physics and quantum physics. — universeness
You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. :smile:Yes, they will! It will ever be your burden to deal with that then until you can provide convincing empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. — universeness
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon
The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity). — Gnomon
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. — Gnomon
This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0. — Gnomon
It's easy for moderns, after centuries of scientific investigation to feel intellectually superior to ancient philosophers — Gnomon
For example, Aristotle used — Gnomon
The bible is mostly filled with babble and Aristotle proposed an Earth centric universe, so we now have much better sources of accurate knowledge than the bible or Aristotle. They are welcome to be part of the mountain that we now stand upon, to enable us to see further than the ancients ever could. I personally consider Aristotle as having contributed a pebble to the growth of that mountain, the bible to have actually hindering the growth of the mountain and people like Einstein to have added whole layers to the mountain.The Bible says that — Gnomon
I hope so, yes, but I take it by 'singularity,' you are referring to some pivotal scientific/technological breakthrough. I don't think they will consider the description of energy as the ability to do work, as being incorrect but I hope they will consider it rather simplistic and basic.*1. Don't you think the humans of the far future Singularity will dismiss your own primitive notions of "Energy" (ability to do work) as mere metaphors for concepts you barely understand? Enformationism merely goes one step forward by defining "Energy" in terms of mathematical ratios (i.e. abstract information). — Gnomon
*2. A superiority complex is a belief that your abilities or accomplishments are somehow dramatically better than other people's. — Gnomon
*3. "Eugenius says that 'the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients' but moderns have "excelled them."
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous English scientist, once said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” — Gnomon
Skepticism toward unorthodox notions is essential to a scientific worldview. But openness to novelty is also necessary for advancement of knowledge, and to avoid fossilized orthodoxy. Perhaps, you may be guilty of over-minimizing complex concepts that don't fit your current belief system. — Gnomon
Indeed, poorly.since the poorly named big bang — universeness
I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order.I am not sure what you mean here by 'a combination of order and disorder?' — universeness
Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it.The music sound wave example you gave looks ordered and would be considered a very interesting signal, if SETI received it from deep space. — universeness
I have no reason to believe humans will stop expanding their purview. Our economic model (despite recessions) is hinged on constant expansion/growth and resource acquisition. Our planet being finite in resources this compels us to look further afield - to space and its numerous expansive resources of rare metals and elements as well as habitable planets in which to form economies and industry and thus propagate jobs, lifestyles etc. — Benj96
Coupled with our innate curiosity to further knowledge, and our advancing technology, it seems inevitable that either us, or our consciousness integrated into artificial bodies, will further our sphere of influence beyond what we ever thought was imaginable before. — Benj96
So I think it's likely that humans will colonise space, one way or another, and maximise our chances of survival, reducing our dependency on any one solar system, any one energy source (Sun) for survival. All going to plan ofc. — Benj96
Other lifeforms could be well underway to doing the same. And if they're not, sheer distance will cause our species to diverge into multiple different species across the galaxy. Unless we can solve issues of travel time or become metallic organisms/conscious computers/robots with indefinite lifespans. — Benj96
What this seems to mean as a general direction is that the universe wishes to be fully colonised, fully consolidated and fully alive/sentient. And if it doesn't wish it, for some reason the physics and chemistry of the system certainly seems to propagate that behaviour. — Benj96
A limited resource constrains the usage to which it can be put. Running power for no likely gain will drain that resource sooner than if it wasn’t being used that way. More people can live on the excess.Theism doesn’t waste resources that others will have to pay for with their lives. — noAxioms
Not sure what you mean by this? Example? — universeness
Oh like the Russians are going to honor those contracts when things get tight. But yea, they’ll take your money.Several hundred people have already paid to have their bodies cryogenically preserved in three existing facilities in the US and Russia, and there are as many as 1,250 on waiting lists.
Didn’t talk about being an enemy of an idea. I said enemy of an environment. Better to make friends with it, work with it, not against it.I have already stated that I think that 'all of the above will be attempted.' I am hardly therefore 'an enemy' of any idea for how best to develop and explore space.
No, they’re both controlled pretty much by the same method. It’s not like airplanes flew over and sprayed for them.It's a lot easier to control frogs that to control human population
That’s what the robots say! Another typo? If we don’t do something about it, the frog method will get employed (no, not make grease spots on all the intersections).We can just dispose of a currently existing excess human population.
Doesn’t stop them. Nobody likes getting told what to do, especially if its for the benefit of somebody else. Also, there will be those who comply and those who defy and have a bunch of kids. Guess which group gets naturally selected out? We’d be breeding humanity for wanting larger families.Whilst we also try to educate people into understanding their current local circumstances and the folly of having children they and the government they live under are unable to, or are too corrupt to, or are to much under the influence of international interference to, support.
OK, I think they’re fairly exclusive imo. We’re not fit to do it, but what we can create can be fit to do it. Best odds of survival of humans is to not kill each other at home. It’s worked great for many species, but yea, not so much the dinosaurs.so it’s humanity’s survival that’s the goal, not the taking-over of the galaxy. — noAxioms
Both goals handshake imo,
Pretty much got that from you with your talk of humanity having a purpose of making some kind significant impact on the universe, like it served the purpose of the universe or something. Can’t make any more than a scratch if we don’t cause something to spread out, to outlast the death of our planet which is already about 80% of the way there.I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.
Civilization collapses. We still have metal, but it’s old stuff from before. Nobody knows anymore how to get more since it takes tech to get at it. We’ve mined all the easy stuff. It becomes a chicken/egg problem. Takes metal to get to get to the metal. Fear not. The salvaged metals will last centuries. The longer it lasts, the less we’ll remember how to get more when most of it has corroded away.’No metal? Please explain!
So is every first world government on the planet, just some more than others. Anyway, yea, I definitely get socialist vibes from you. The Scandinavian countries seem to do it best. Harder to be rich there.I am a socialist
It does serve a purpose, but isn’t implemented well anywhere. I mean over-the-table bribery as policy? That’s sanctioned corruption. Nobody blinks, and those getting the bribes are hardly motivated to vote that crap out of the law.who no longer sees value in party politics.
That’s the mommy I talked about. We’re not good at all about implementing something like that, but I agree, it’s absolutely needed.I currently support notions of global unity
Nice pipe dream, but no numbers. They say no servitude, but it’s all people shown doing the work, and they don’t show where the stuff comes from. No wind farms or other renewable energy apparent.Venus project:
We were being selected for it for a while, even if it’s on the decline now. If it becomes ethical to make modifications, we can reverse that trend, so I’m willing to suggest a future upswing. The singularity might render the need moot.I am not suggesting we are more intelligent than the ancients or that we will be 'more intelligent' in the future — universeness
and in anything ‘posthuman’.So, our knowledge increases as a collective. This is another example of what is emergent in humans.
They don’t though. Things just get tough from there on according to the story. You have a second chance of sorts, but the path is narrower than it was before the rapture. Tread it and you will be severely persecuted. So I was taught anyway. No, I was not raised by rapturists, but we covered this sort of stuff in school.Yeah but it's an 'end times' curio. Those who are not 'raptured,' perish!
No, but the church needs to get on the side of humanity instead of the side of the church. It isn’t ever going to happen.We don't need to kill popes.
These are all grown/harvested/distributed with fossil fuels today. They’re not a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground.How about genetically modified foods?
How about vertical farming?
Not talking about 2050. I’m talking about when there’s no more to dig out of the ground, coupled with what the environment will look like with that much greenhouse gasses added to what’s already there.It not like no-one is talking about it. For example, five-ways-we-can-feed-the-world-in-2050
Negative mass and tachyons are also valid under Einstein’s equations. Much of this wormhole stuff requires such exotic matter which theoretically is allowed, but isn’t open to actually existing. Really, a micro black hole? How are messages going to be sent fast utilizing a tiny bit of spacetime that is infinitely far into the coordinate future? Maybe I have to actually find time to watch the thing.his continued reference to the concept of 'transportation through a wormhole' with entangled micro black holes at either end and his statement that he thinks wormholes may well be physical realities. — universeness
Only? That is that fantastic chance you were positing. We actually meed something where it is questionable which is more intelligent. Hardly disappointing. They’re probably as disappointed in us not being like them as we are of them not being like us.I think that we would be ecstatic initially, but eventually, we would probably be somewhat disappointed that we came so far to find only the equivalent of killer whales.
A colony where we’re not allowed to touch the environment? Sounds like a zoo for the Orka amusement.Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there.
I’m old enough to remember professional news reporting. It died when people stopped paying for it. No, those best of times are gone for now. Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources.We probably currently live in 'the best of times,' at least so far, when it comes to being able to combat fake news.
I am in a way. My son has one of those smart speakers and it totally gives me the creeps to know everything in the room is being recorded in some google database somewhere. For a long time I was in the biz of selling places like google things on which to store all that data.That's almost technophobic sir!
I don’t see any collective purpose exhibited by the human race. There’s a list of nice-to-haves, but no actual striving for some collective purpose. Not even something as simple as ‘don’t go extinct’. But then, I don’t see any other species with a purpose like that either. We’re not worse than the sponges.I suggested such as a 'collectivised' or 'totality' of intent and purpose of the human race.
No electronics. It knows everything simply by always being right, by chance.Interesting, but how did this, I assume, 'electronic manifestation' demonstrate it's omniscience?
It wouldn’t hear you, but it wouldn’t need to. Yes, you could ask it anything and it would convey the correct answer in whatever method it could do that, perhaps by writing in your native language.Could you ask it questions?
That's the whole idea of the singularity, that x can make its successor.Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible — Agent Smith
No. IQ is a bell curve centered on 100, but can have a negative IQ, which is still vastly more intelligent than inanimate matter.base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0
On average, humans have 100 IQ by definition.but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130
I gave you an example. The apparently disordered soundwave is also (i.e. it represents) an ordered musical sound. Also atoms by simple observation seem disordered but they follow well ordered, balanced (with forces) system. The planets seem disordered in space but they are also orbiting based on a very orderly system of gravity forces. And so on. In all of these cases, where there is (apparently) a disorder there's also an order. — Alkis Piskas
Yeah, your example reminds me of the film contact when the blind guy uses his more developed hearing to listen to the signal from space and makes a statement like 'there's a lot more here guys!'Anyway, I don't think that anyone can see an order --e.g. a pattern-- in this soundwave. It could well be random. You must hear it to see that there's an order or pattern in it. — Alkis Piskas
BTW, even if some aliens receive this sound, they might not undestand anything at all. That is, they could consider it garbage or random, i.e. something disordered. And vice versa, if we receive a sound from space in which we can't detect some pattern although it might have been sent by aliens who conscidered it ordered. — Alkis Piskas
So, when we are referring to the whole universe, we cannot be certain about what is ordered and what is disordered. — Alkis Piskas
You will find lots of empirical evidence to support my thesis in the links to articles by professional scientists. But, only the Enformationism thesis will provide the logical connections between bits & pieces of physical evidence and professional opinions that add-up to the conclusion that the physical world has "at bottom . . . an immaterial source and explanation". That may sound like "nonsense" to you. But I'll let you argue with a prominent physicist about the scientific details of his thesis : an information-centric participatory universe. — Gnomon
Yes. Most belief systems are conservative, and don't change with every shift of the wind. Old paradigms give way to new worldviews only as old believers die out. That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click.I always try to avoid ossifying when it comes to my viewpoints. I am sure you do the same.
Well if you have such significant support from the scientific community then I am sure I will hear a lot more about Enformationism and your BothAnd proposals. From sources other than its author. — universeness
No, I had to google it. Subtracting the non-essential to improve the chances of success at achieving a goal, seems very valid to me, in situations which don't have any moral issue associated with them.
But if there are issues of human morality involved, then there must be judgement involved, that must not prioritise the goal over all other consequentials involved.
I accept the 'lesser of two evils,' type scenario's etc, as horrible as some of those can be in certain circumstances.
I assign no value or significance to:
"The idea comes from a Latin phrase used initially in Christian Theology to explain what God is by focusing on what he isn’t.
If God transcends all things, humans cannot apply qualities and attributes to him in the affirmative (God is light, God is love, etc.). Instead, via negativa presents God as a mystery that humans cannot describe in words." — universeness
Can x make y more intelligent than x? It seems possible
— Agent Smith
That's the whole idea of the singularity, that x can make its successor.
base matter (inanimate) has an IQ of 0
No. IQ is a bell curve centered on 100, but can have a negative IQ, which is still vastly more intelligent than inanimate matter.
but humans, on average, have an IQ of 130
On average, humans have 100 IQ by definition.
Humans emerging from matter isn't really the matter 'making' us, but rather a natural process, sort of things making themselves. We can short-circuit that natural process and actually modify our genes to produce more intelligent offspring. That would definitely by a case of x 'making' y where y scores better. Right now the human race is not being selected for intelligence, so it's probably trending downward. — noAxioms
Not exactly. I said that what looks disordered can also be ordered, from another frame of reference. Not always or everything. E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. Neither can the dispersed irregular pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Etc.So, you are saying the disorder is only apparent, when we pull further out and increase the contents of our frame of reference then we see the order. — universeness
I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. But based on just that, I can say that if the Universe started in a state of --logically maximum-- entropy, i.e. total chaos, and then order followed, then we have to assume either that 1) there must exist a Supreme Power, like God, that has done that or 2) entropy/disorder has the tendency to become order. In fact, (2) may actually be a consequence of (1), in the sense that the Supreme Power does not let disorder/entropy prevail or persist, and it makes so that order prevails at the end. However, all these are speculations that can entail long discussions!at the largest scale, entropy would suggest that we would see evidence that we are moving towards heat death — universeness
I see. OK.That's at least the way I perceive the disorder-order-disorder posit. — universeness
Right! Good point. :up:We might be getting all sorts of signals from space dwelling extraterrestials but our receiving tech/methodology is not compatible with their transmitting tech/methodology! — universeness
You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:I suppose it depends on how true the claim is, that on the largest scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic — universeness
Sorry noAxioms, I am probably being rather dense on this one, but I still don't get your point here.Anyway, to my knowledge, theism doesn’t encourage this sort of delay to meeting your maker. — noAxioms
I try not to make judgements based on nationality. When things get tight, I don't think Russians act so differently from Americans, Germans, Englishmen, Africans or any other nationality.Oh like the Russians are going to honor those contracts when things get tight. But yea, they’ll take your money. — noAxioms
It's the same in any human service. Supply and demand. Demand often does outstrip supply or capacity (when it comes to cryogenic units and the long term storage of such). Not an issue for me or you, as I suspect neither of us is on the waiting list. I suspect that if you die and the available facilities cant provide for you then tha's just tough, unless you are rich enough to have your own private cryogenic facility built. Your own modern version of an Egyption pyramid perhaps.Waiting list? What, like I’m dying now but a spot is opening up next March? Hope you haven’t expired too much while you’re waiting. — noAxioms
Oh, I get what you meant now, you mean, rather than trying to terraform Mars, its wiser to transform humans so they can live in the current Martian environment. As I have already suggested, I think the reality may prove to be somewhere between the two but I have little doubt that a period of trail and error will occur in the traditional pioneer spirit.Didn’t talk about being an enemy of an idea. I said enemy of an environment. Better to make friends with it, work with it, not against it. — noAxioms
I don't approve of the aggressive sounding, 'taking over of the galaxy' imagery you invoke.
Pretty much got that from you with your talk of humanity having a purpose of making some kind significant impact on the universe, like it served the purpose of the universe or something. Can’t make any more than a scratch if we don’t cause something to spread out, to outlast the death of our planet which is already about 80% of the way there. — noAxioms
Civilization collapses. We still have metal, but it’s old stuff from before. Nobody knows anymore how to get more since it takes tech to get at it. We’ve mined all the easy stuff. It becomes a chicken/egg problem. Takes metal to get to get to the metal. Fear not. The salvaged metals will last centuries. The longer it lasts, the less we’ll remember how to get more when most of it has corroded away.’ — noAxioms
Nonsense sir! no current first world country is socialist. They are all capitalist as they are all currency driven, free market economies.I am a socialist
So is every first world government on the planet, just some more than others. — noAxioms
:clap: Well said!who no longer sees value in party politics.
It does serve a purpose, but isn’t implemented well anywhere. I mean over-the-table bribery as policy? That’s sanctioned corruption. Nobody blinks, and those getting the bribes are hardly motivated to vote that crap out of the law. — noAxioms
When it comes to the basics of how the currently existential situations we face, might be improved, I think we agree more that we don't. I just have more confidence than you seem to, that our species can do much much better than we have so far.I currently support notions of global unity
That’s the mommy I talked about. We’re not good at all about implementing something like that, but I agree, it’s absolutely needed. — noAxioms
A resourced based global economy, would be the most significant human change to the way we live, since we switched from nomadic hunter-gatherers to fixed communities supported by craft trades, trading and agriculture. So yeah, many details are yet to be confirmed or even discussed.Venus project:
Nice pipe dream, but no numbers. They say no servitude, but it’s all people shown doing the work, and they don’t show where the stuff comes from. No wind farms or other renewable energy apparent. — noAxioms
The 'church' needs to drop god and become a secular humanist support network. Or, at least, every church/chapel/temple/cathedral/mosque etc should also function as secular homeless shelters, substance abuse support centers, medical support centers, etc, etc.No, but the church needs to get on the side of humanity instead of the side of the church. It isn’t ever going to happen. — noAxioms
These are all grown/harvested/distributed with fossil fuels today. They’re not a substitute for digging limited carbon out of the ground. — noAxioms
Not talking about 2050. I’m talking about when there’s no more to dig out of the ground, coupled with what the environment will look like with that much greenhouse gasses added to what’s already there. — noAxioms
Negative mass and tachyons are also valid under Einstein’s equations. Much of this wormhole stuff requires such exotic matter which theoretically is allowed, but isn’t open to actually existing. Really, a micro black hole? How are messages going to be sent fast utilizing a tiny bit of spacetime that is infinitely far into the coordinate future? Maybe I have to actually find time to watch the thing. — noAxioms
Only? That is that fantastic chance you were positing. We actually meed something where it is questionable which is more intelligent. Hardly disappointing. They’re probably as disappointed in us not being like them as we are of them not being like us. — noAxioms
I suggested we leave their habitat and environment alone. I was not suggesting that would mean we could not 'touch' any part of the planet or its entire environment. Did you deliberately misspell Orca as these imaginings are alien Orca which you are calling OrKa? :lol:Yes, I hope we fully respect the alien killer whales and we leave their habitat and environment alone. Perhaps however, we may still be able to start a colony there.
A colony where we’re not allowed to touch the environment? Sounds like a zoo for the Orka amusement. — noAxioms
But that's just half the stuff YOU have read, which is what percent of available 'stuff'?Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources. — noAxioms
How much merit do you give to 'big brother is watching you?'I am in a way. My son has one of those smart speakers and it totally gives me the creeps to know everything in the room is being recorded in some google database somewhere. For a long time I was in the biz of selling places like google things on which to store all that data. — noAxioms
I don’t see any collective purpose exhibited by the human race. There’s a list of nice-to-haves, but no actual striving for some collective purpose. Not even something as simple as ‘don’t go extinct’. But then, I don’t see any other species with a purpose like that either. We’re not worse than the sponges. — noAxioms
It would have been fun to have been part of that discussion.We came to the conclusion that this creature must exist in some world out there, but not in this one, so not existing by any empirical definition of the word. — noAxioms
That's why I don't expect many physical scientists to accept the new way of understanding the world. But I provide links to the few pioneers that do -- all you have to do is click. — Gnomon
I am really beginning to hate that overburdened quote.Even Einstein, as a theoretician, was loathe to accept the uncertain statistical basis of Quantum Theory : "God doesn't throw dice" — Gnomon
Are you making satisfactory progress?So I just patiently chip away at one philosophy forum, to see if theoretical thinkers are quicker to see the value of fundamental causal Information, than pragmatic doers. — Gnomon
Acceptance of new paradigms usually take generations to become "settled science". At this stage, very few members of the "scientific community" are aware of a post-Shannon interpretation of Information. But if you want "sources other than the author" just follow the links. — Gnomon
Mostly true, but I do personally like genuine seekers. Tesla was considered 'slightly mad,' and there are many many such examples, including some like Tesla who was also a freaking genius!Since I have no academic or professional qualifications, I'd have to possess a monumental ego to expect anyone to take my amateur opinions as truths. — Gnomon
Emergence is not just an increase in magnitude of an ability, it's the development of a whole new one. — Agent Smith
E.g. I can't think that boiling water, with al its irregular bubbles can be viewed also as ordered in some other way. — Alkis Piskas
I'm not good at Physics, sorry. I only know that entropy is a state and degree of disorder or randomness. — Alkis Piskas
I depends how you are using disorder here. The water atoms become more exited/dynamic, they move around a lot faster, due to being heated. If ten people stand still, as close as they can to each other, in a group, compared with all ten of them constantly changing places with each other, as fast as they can, only using the same extent of ground (as best they can). Would you call the ten people standing still, ordered and the ones moving about, disordered? Disorder can be described as 'a state of confusion' or 'disrupting the systematic functioning of or neat arrangement of.' The ten people moving about display an ordered/common purpose, but their movement could nonetheless be called disordered.the water starts in an odered state (calm, standstill, level), it becomes disordered when it is boiled and it is put back into its initial ordered sytate when boiling finishes. — Alkis Piskas
You are bombarding me with Physics terminology! But I undestand the term "homogenuous" at least! :grin:
Well, maybe. As I said, all that is speculations. I prefer to talk about things that we can know, perceive, examine and understand within the framework of our small world and our common reality, in the broad sense. — Alkis Piskas
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.